Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 8 of 10
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and had filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to revive it if the Vivad Se Vishwas application fails.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's successful enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made exhaustive verifications and arrived at a plausible view that the forfaiting charges were deductible as revenue expenditure. Therefore, the PCIT could not invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to substitute his own view.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) v. ACIT. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the assessee to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme application was not accepted or if the assessee did not opt for it.
The tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal, following a Madras High Court precedent. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme settlement was not favorable or if the department did not accept the application.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee retains the right to revive the appeal if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its business expenditure, making the claim for business loss not allowable. The addition of interest income under 'income from other sources' was also upheld.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, including PAN, income tax returns, bank statements of investors, and share allotment documents. The AO's approach was found to be contrary to settled legal principles.
Following the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted as the assessee had filed a declaration and undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance from the Revenue.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted as the assessee had filed a declaration and undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance from the Revenue.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's precedent, decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in determining the ALP of regional management services at Nil without following prescribed methods and without sufficient evidence. The disallowance of bad debts was upheld due to lack of substantiation. The TDS credit issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal, noting that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, dismissed the appeals. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal, noting that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, dismissed the appeals. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received Form-3. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to seek restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal as the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as disposed of by being withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the no-objection from the Revenue, decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration is deemed void.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and, in the absence of any objection from the Revenue, decided to treat the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme application did not reach a logical conclusion.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for the time being, as the assessee is settling the dispute under the VVS Scheme. The assessee is granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to revive the appeal if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision in M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF), dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement was not favorable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as disposed of by being withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and requested to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee was not carrying on the business of banking as defined by law and was therefore eligible for the Section 80P deduction. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the financial transactions were not in the nature of loans or advances. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 2(22)(e) in the company's case, rendering the protective addition in the shareholders' cases infructuous.
The Tribunal held that unsold properties treated as stock-in-trade by a builder/developer should be assessed under the head 'Income from Business' and not 'Income from House Property'. Therefore, the AO was not justified in taxing the notional rental value.
The Tribunal held that the transaction could not be considered bogus solely based on the statement of an individual recorded by the Investigation Wing, especially when the assessee had provided documentary evidence like demat statements and proof of sale. The denial of cross-examination for the said individual also weakened the AO's case.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's intention to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration is deemed void.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AYs 2010-11 and 2012-13 as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. The appeals for AYs 2011-12 and 2013-14 were dismissed as infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as disposed of by being withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, following the Madras High Court's decision regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, acknowledging that the assessee likely made purchases from undisclosed parties and that the profit element was the appropriate disallowance.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's intention to settle under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the settlement applications were rejected.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration was deemed void.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee can approach the Tribunal for restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that since purchase vouchers were produced, payments were made through banking channels, and sales were not doubted, the assessee could not be penalized for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as disposed of by being withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal considered the position and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal following the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme declaration was not accepted or if the assessee did not opt for the scheme.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal, following a Madras High Court decision, allowing the assessee to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not favorable or accepted. The assessee was directed to file the declaration by a specific date.